[¶
1] Anoulak Thornsavan appeals from an order denying his
motion to suppress and from the civil judgment forfeiting
$127, 930 to the State. We affirm, concluding there was
reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop and a
Miranda warning was not required.

I

[¶
2] In July 2015, Officer Mason Ware pulled over Thornsavan,
along with his passenger, Saravanh Phommakhy, on Interstate
94. Ware stopped Thornsavan because it appeared to him that
the car had excessive window tint. Prior to the stop, Ware
checked the vehicle registration in his database, which
indicated that the vehicle was registered to an individual
born in 1937. Ware noted that both Thornsavan and Phommakhy
looked as though they were in their late 20's or early
30's. Ware also found it significant that neither
Thornsavan or Phommakhy acknowledged him as he drove
alongside them; instead, they looked straight ahead.

[¶
3] Walking toward the stopped car, Ware saw a pillow,
blanket, and backpack in the backseat of the car, but not any
luggage. Soon after making contact, Ware asked for licenses
and registration. When Thornsavan reached into his center
console to obtain his information, Ware saw a "bundle of
cash" in the console with a $50 bill on top of the stack
and a $20 bill on the bottom. Thornsavan then gave Ware a
photocopy of the vehicle title. The photocopy indicated that
the car had been purchased just four days prior. Ware
testified that Thornsavan and Phommakhy appeared nervous,
avoided eye contact, stuttered, and displayed tremors in
their hands. Ware tested the tint of Thornsavan's
driver-side window, and the test indicated a violation of the
vehicle tint law. Ware asked Thornsavan to sit in his squad
car, and Thornsavan complied.

[¶
4] While in the squad car, Ware checked the licenses and
registration, and inquired into Thornsavan's travel
plans. Thornsavan told Ware that he and Phommakhy were
driving "straight through" to Seattle to visit a
friend who was going to show them around the city. Ware
testified that, since the day of the stop was a Friday and
Thornsavan said he was planning on returning by Monday,
Thornsavan would apparently be spending only a few hours in
Seattle. Thornsavan originally stated that he was returning
to Minneapolis by Monday, but later said his return day would
be Tuesday.

[¶
5] Ware's questioning then turned to the recent car
purchase. Ware testified that Thornsavan didn't give him
a direct answer right away as to how much he paid for his
car. Thornsavan changed his recollection of the sale price
from $4, 400 to $4, 300. Ware thought this was odd since
Thornsavan had just purchased the car. Additionally, the
title indicated the car was purchased for $2, 500. Thornsavan
told Ware that he had put $2, 500 as the price on the title
because the seller had told him to write in any amount and
Thornsavan decided to write $2, 500 to avoid paying higher
taxes. Next, Ware inquired into the relationship between
Thornsavan and Phommakhy. Thornsavan told Ware that the two
were cousins and roommates. The addresses on their
driver's licenses, however, did not match. Thornsavan
also became increasingly nervous while in the squad car,
especially so when Ware's computer made noises or when
Ware was typing. Thornsavan asked multiple times if
everything was "checking out" with the computer
searches.

[¶
6] Ware asked Thornsavan about the contents of his car just
prior to issuing a warning citation. Specifically, Ware
testified:

I had asked him if there was any drugs, guns, anything
illegal in the vehicle, any large sums of money, which during
the answering, he did--his answers were consistent up until I
asked him about the large sums of money. At which point, he
had stated, "No, no" twice instead of the--before
he was just saying, "Oh, no, " "No, " and
then when it came to large sums of money, he did say,
"No, no."

Ware
then issued Thornsavan a warning citation for the excessive
tint. Ware asked Thornsavan if he would consent to a search
of his vehicle. Thornsavan declined. Ware informed Thornsavan
that his car would be detained until a drug dog inspected the
car, but told Thornsavan he was free to leave. Thornsavan
then got out of the car and sat in the ditch.

[¶
7] Officer Jed Dahnke arrived with the drug dog, and the dog
alerted on the trunk of the car. The officers searched the
trunk and found two duffle bags containing vacuum-sealed
blocks of cash with dryer sheets in between the sealed
layers. The total cash amount found and seized by law
enforcement was $127, 930, which included $930 found in the
center console. Thornsavan filed a motion to suppress his
statements and the money found. The district court denied the
motion to suppress and ordered the money to be forfeited.

II

[¶
8] "When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a
motion to suppress, we defer to the court's findings of
fact and resolve conflicts in the evidence in favor of
affirmance." State v. Guscette, 2004 ND 71,
¶ 5, 678 N.W.2d 126.

We will affirm a trial court's disposition of a motion to
suppress unless, after resolving conflicting evidence in
favor of affirmance, there is insufficient competent evidence
fairly capable of supporting the trial court's findings,
or the decision is contrary to the manifest weight of the
evidence. Our deferential standard of review recognizes the
importance of a trial court's opportunity to assess the
credibility of the witnesses.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&para;
9] We have stated that "traffic violations, even if
considered common or minor, constitute prohibited conduct
and, therefore, provide officers with requisite suspicion for
conducting investigatory stops." State v.
Stadsvold, 456 N.W.2d 295, 296 (N.D. 1990). Here, Ware
observed that Thornsavan's vehicle appeared to have
excessive tint when he drove next to it. On the basis of his
training and experience, Ware had reasonable ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.